Applying Organizational Learning to Enterprise Knowledge...

Applying Organizational Learning to Enterprise

Knowledge Maturing

Andreas Martin, Roman Brun(University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW),

Institute for Information Systems, Olten, Switzerland{andreas.martin},{roman.brun}@fhnw.ch)

Abstract: We first describe the state of the art of organizational learning, mentioningthe theories and types of it. The need of organizational learning, contributing processesand the main processes are further explained. Various methods of organizational learn-ing are introduced. A template for a short description is proposed, which gives anoverview about existing methods. The template then offers the possibility to indicatewhich method can be applied on Enterprise Knowledge Maturing.

Key Words: organizational learning, methods of organizational learning, types of or-ganizational learning, processes of organization learning, organizational learning views,dimensions of knowledge potentials, method template

Category: L.0.0, L.3.4, M.1, M.3

1 Introduction

In today’s fast-paced world, innovation and development speed has become ex-tremely important for successful business. The fundament of innovation is knowl-edge as a result of learning [Pautzke, 1989]. The learning attitudes of organi-zations are known as Organizational Learning (OL). OL has already becomepopular since a quite long time. The basis has been described by[Argyris and Schoen, 1978], who defined OL as ”the awareness and correctionof mistakes”. Later, [Fiol and Lyles, 1985] defined learning as ”the process ofenhancing of activities through better knowledge and understanding”. They de-scribed that OL leads further through development of complex interactions thanthe sum of individual learning. [Dodgson, 1993] mentions that learning is essen-tial for the maturing knowledge of a single person but also for the whole organi-sation. [Probst and Buchel, 1997] defined OL based on the systems theory as the”interaction between individual and organization”. Further views on OL havebeen defined by [Prange, 1999], [Lave and Wenger, 1991] and [Beck, 1997].

1.1 Relationship between Individual, Group & Organization

The approach of [Sessa and London, 2006, p. 6] describes the importance of therelationship between individual, group, organization and environment. Organiza-tional learning builds on group learning which again depends on individual learn-ing. How they contribute to each other is also mentioned in [Brass et al., 2004].

Proceedings of I-KNOW ’09 and I-SEMANTICS ’092-4 September 2009, Graz, Austria 39

Preconditions for continuous learning are the environment’s need for change andthe system’s readiness for change. If the system is ready and the need is high, adesired result might be achieved; otherwise frustration, learning failure or stand-ing at a status quo will be the result.The definition of individual, group and organization are given to support theunderstanding of the relationship between the methods and the three differentelements.

– An individual is a single person.– A group is a team, e.g. in a project, with a defined start and end.– We defined an organization as an enterprise, a department or division.

2 Types of Learning

[Argyris and Schoen, 1978] defined learning as the detection of errors. They in-troduced tree types of learning:Single-loop learning (adaptive learning) : Single-loop learning occurs when

errors are corrected and detected within a given set of governing variableslike policies and goals.

Double-loop learning (shift / generative / proactive learning) :Double-loop learning occurs when additionally of detecting and correctingerrors, norms and policies will be adapted and improved.

Deutero learning (learning how to learn / transformative learning) :Deutero learning occurs when double-loop learning and single-loop learningis under revision.

3 The Trigger for OL and how to support it

As described in [Sessa and London, 2006], the need for OL appears in differentsituations and there exist various models for organizational change and devel-opment. Different processes support the OL. On the one hand, some processesof an organization contribute to organizational learning. These supporting pro-cesses can be developed and adjusted in a way they optimally support OL (see3.2). On the other hand, OL processes exist which handle the information andknowledge management inside an organization and its elements (see 3.3).

3.1 The Need for and the Development of OL

Different situations may drive the need for organizational learning. A few amongothers are changing governmental situations, economic downturns and economicfluctuation in general, expansions, acquisitions or mergers, where a national

A. Martin, R. Brun: Applying Organizational Learning ...40

company evolves into a multinational enterprise and is confronted with a varietyof law and business practices or changing competition on the marketplace.

Learning is often involved with the change and development of an organiza-tion. That might affect processes, policies, hierarchies, structure, communicationpractices, products and goals of organizations. The development is linked witha progression through different stages of learning. Such steps are introducedin the MATURE-Project and the proposed dimensions of knowledge potentials[Brun et al., 2008].

3.2 Contributing Processes to OL / (Organizational Capabilities)

Different processes in an organization support OL, also mentioned in[Argyris and Schoen, 1978]. OL can occur when individual and group learningis embedded into routines, structure, culture and the strategy of organizations.The following contributing processes are strongly linked to each other.Development of the strategy: As mentioned in [Sasser2006: 160], members

of an organization often have a shared vision. Therefore every individual hasa collective view of how the organization should work.

Development of the organizational structure: The structure has to en-sure that OL is supported with enough resources, i.e. the right people at theright place at the right time.

Development of the organizational culture: [Argyris and Schoen, 1978]propose two different Models I and II to describe mental models. In ModelI leaders don’t accept feedback, where in Model II the behaviour is open toothers, evaluating comments and trying alternative actions, what constantlyleads to organizational learning.

Development of the personnel: The leaders of a company are powerful pro-moters of an organization and should use their archetype function to drive anorganization towards a learning orientation, by being a continuous learner.

3.3 OL Processes

[Huber, 1991] describes four processes and corresponding sub-processes whichcontribute to organizational learning and handle the knowledge management.An iterative process may continuously improve each of these OL processes.Knowledge acquisition: Through the acquisition of knowledge, the organiza-

tion is able to learn.Information distribution: The distribution of information is the process

where information is directly shared amongst units and employees, also ininformal ways [Brown and Duguid, 1991].

A. Martin, R. Brun: Applying Organizational Learning ... 41

Information interpretation: Received information must be interpreted. Indi-viduals have different information background and formation of knowledgeand therefore might interpret the information in different ways.

Organizational memory: Knowledge has to be stored in repositories for fu-ture use, also called ”Corporate Knowledge” by [Hamel and Prahalad, 1994].

4 Methods of OL

There exist different methods of organizational learning with different input,output and stakeholders, from very simple to more complicated ones. A collectionamong the various methods that exist for OL are first listed in a table (see table1) and then shortly described. They should give a good overview about thepossibilities of existing methods. Later on we propose a template for describingeach method, where we exemplary describe the Open Space Method.

Table 1: Header: Who will be affected / Whose knowledge will mature; Rows:Different method of OL

4.1 Method Description

Thanks to Individual Feedback, an individual can recognize the effects of itsactions and choices, and realizes continuous learning through the adoption ofactivities, to change from negative to positive output. Without feedback, orga-nization members cannot evaluate whether they should repeat their behaviouror modify it, accordingly no learning occurs.

In a Buddy System two people operate, monitor and help each other. They


may work as a single unit and both benefit from an increased knowledge base.

Mentoring is quite similar to the buddy system. Two persons have differentexperience- and hierarchy-levels, but the relationship is not based on superiorand employee. Also if the more experienced person may have a role of a godfa-ther, professional and personal knowledge can mature for both of them.

Coaching is a stronger version of mentoring. A professional coach trains in-dividuals but also groups, by using assessments, setting goals, focusing on plans,behaviour and further instruments.

Job Rotation: If employees switch for a predefined time to another job, theyget a different view of how things are done. It mainly supports organizationsto mature knowledge, as the exchanging employees interchange knowledge, butalso the individual’s knowledge is being enhanced.

A catalogue of Strengths and Weaknesses will be identified, which can beused to identify the room for improvement. (The other part of the SWOT-Analysis, Opportunities and Threats, consider the external factors).

Knowledge Groups: Employees doing the same or similar work meet peri-odically to talk about how they do their work. Problems and possible solutionsare discussed; best practices may be an output of such groups.

Story Telling: Performing this method, a story teller explains implicit knowl-edge often in a form of a metaphor, sometimes supported by music and images.The talker explains a situation based on its experience, the audience listens toit to adopt the behaviour but also to scrutinize the procedure.

Lessons Learned: Often after a project some lessons learned are made ex-plicit. These help for further work not to fall into same traps and to continuouslyimprove standard procedure and other tasks, which leads to an organizationalknowledge maturing.

A Knowledge Landscape represents the knowledge inside an organization.It helps to locate experts and to identify holes of missing organizational knowl-edge expertise.

The Open Space Method can be performed with any group size. Initiators,which can be anyone, have some proposals or ideas. If many ideas exist, theywill be clustered. Then working groups find together and formulate the result.


Every participant of such a group can feel free to switch to another group dur-ing the development of the results. The results are all putted on a wall, so thateverybody can read and discuss about them. At the end, all results are taken to-gether, and in the plenum the best of them are evaluated, for which new groupscan be formed who concretise the ideas and which are presented on a later stage.

Pensioners System: Applying this method, former employees, already in theirpension, are fetched back for different reasons. This could be the lack of expertson the labour market or the missed circulation of information.

Best Practices are written down so that anyone has access to them and canperform best practices. Basis for best practices is acquired and matured knowl-edge. Some input might be supplied by the knowledge groups.

Ideal-Organization: Each member of an organization should present his viewof the ideal organization. This helps for the further development of the vision ofan organization and shows the wishes of each individual.

4.2 Method Template

The template (see figure 1) consists of attributes which have to be described forevery method used in OL. The following section describes how it should be used.Starting from the top, the template indicates whether

– a method can be used for an individual, a group or an organization,– for which type of learning it is appropriate (single-loop, double-loop, deutero

learning) and– in which of the aforementioned OL processes it is applicable.

Then, each attribute of the template consist of several related questions whichshould be answered. Once for each method the template has been filled,– it firstly helps to get an overview about the various methods and helps to

structure them.– Secondly, by considering pre- and post-conditions, the relationships between

the methods can be identified.– This then thirdly indicates which method can be used in a given situation

of an organization and serves as a reference.– The task & goals and benefits attributes answer the question why a certain

method should be applied.– The whole description also provides information on how and where a method

can be used.


Figure 1: Method template

The proposed template is related to the pattern language which was introducedby [Alexander et al., 1977] as follows: ”Each pattern describes a problem whichoccurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of thesolution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a milliontimes over, without ever doing it the same way twice. [Alexander et al., 1977]”On these grounds, [Fricke, 2000] introduced with the ’Pedagogical Pattern Maps’a similar method for the education field.

As an exemplary method, the Open Space Method is described with theOL-template (see figure 2).


Figure 2: Exemplary method: Open Space method


5 OL Methods supporting “An integrated Approach to assessthe Potential of an Enterprise to mature Knowledge”

5.1 Assess the Potential of an Enterprise to Mature Knowledge

In [Brun et al., 2008], an ”integrated approach for assessing and maturing enter-prise knowledge with regard to various dimensions” is proposed. This knowledgemanagement radar ”could serve as a management dashboard for showing theas-is-state, to justify the direction as well as the extent of future knowledgemanagement activities”. The six dimensions of the radar are defined as shownin figure 3:

Figure 3: The six dimensions of knowledge potentials and an exemplary OLEnterprise Knowledge Maturing Path extended from [Brun et al., 2008, p. 3]

For each dimension, five steps are defined which represent the knowledge ma-turity in the specific dimension. As described in [Brun et al., 2008], the Knowl-edge Usage dimension ”assesses the integration of knowledge managementactivities into the operational work.” The levels start from ’General-purposestorage and retrieval’ up to ’User-specific and context-adapted knowledge assis-tance’. The dimension of Information Availability ”comprise levels from


’Explicit documentation’ up to ’Automated Metadata Generation’.” The di-mension Maturity of Knowledge Organisation ”leads from Keywords toOntologies. Knowledge organisation deals with (1) building and modelling sys-tems of concepts as well as (2) their mapping to subjects of reality. Methods forknowledge organisation can be arranged in a spectrum with increased seman-tics.” The dimension of Information Management ”considers the structure,security, redundancy, integrity on conflict resolving of information and classi-fies five constructive levels from ’Structure’ to ’Conflict solving and continu-ous proactive development’.” Another dimension for measuring the maturity ofknowledge is the Conciseness of Knowledge. Here ”the quality of contentand an adequate representation are investigated.”

5.2 Adapting OL Methods to Enterprise Knowledge Maturing

Our method template supports the Enterprise Knowledge Maturing (EKM) ap-proach by indicating which method of organizational learning supports the ma-turing process in a specific dimension on a specific level. It therefore indicateshow an organization is able to progress from one level to another. To clarify wegive an example of an enterprise which is, based on its own evaluation, situatedon Level 2 on all dimensions as shown as status quo in figure 3. We now applythe Open Space method as described in detail above. This method is useful fororganizations which stand in such early stages of knowledge maturing and canbe applied to three dimensions: The maturity of knowledge management, theavailability of information and the maturity of knowledge organisation. Afterperforming the Open Space method we can assume that the organization hasreached the next level in these dimensions, or has at least evolve in this direction,as shown with the improvement area in figure 3. Note that beside a dominantdimension also other dimensions are affected in a moderate way.Reaching the next level depends on several factors like the status before andthe correct application of the method among others. It must also be consideredthat OL methods or OL in general might not help in every possible stage anorganization can be situated in to achieve a next level. As mentioned before, OLmethods can support the maturing process in a specific dimension on a specificlevel. Figure 3 shows on the left-hand side on the dimension ’maturity of knowl-edge management’ an example of a possible path of using OL methods. Not everyOL method can be used at every level of enterprise knowledge maturing. Theintroduced method template supports the method selection process. As we seein the exemplary OL-path on the right-hand side in figure 3, it is even possibleto use more than one method at a specific level. It could also be the case thata selected method has a precondition that another method has to deliver as aninput in advance.


5.3 Prevent Enterprise Knowledge Contraction

As explained in section 5.2, the orgnization is situated on specific levels in eachof the dimensions. A reached level is obviously not a stable state. Therefore itshould be another target to stay on the actual enterprise knowledge maturinglevel. OL methods like Job Rotation, Buddy System, etc. can be used to stay ona specific level.

6 Conclusion

The term ’Organizational Learning’ has been defined in different ways and fordifferent purposes. By providing a method template we want to give an overallview about existing OL methods and their possibilities. The description of themethods indicate how they can be used, for which actor and in which context.The template also integrates the types of learning, the supporting processes andthe OL processes, described in the state of the art part. This information shouldhelp to choose the most appropriate methods for an organization situated inone of the seven dimension of knowledge potentials on a specific level. Applyingthe suitable method will therefore help to reach a next level and mature theknowledge.

7 Future Work

A description of all the methods with the given template will represent a refer-ence list of all relevant methods, including their pre- and post-conditions, tasks,constraints and further information. An ’OL-EKM-Map’ (see figure 4) similar tothe ’OL-EKM-Path’ on the right-hand side of figure 3) can be created mainly byusing the pre- and post-conditions of the methods. This helps organizations 1) tofind needed appropriate methods, 2) to understand which methods already mustbe adapted in the organization to use a more developed one, but also by showingwhich methods are more appropriate in earlier or later stages, and 3) to informfor which group size the methods can be used. Such a map could be implementedwithout much effort in a modelling tool like ATHENE [Hinkelmann et al., 2007]by designing a meta-model for it. Using a meta-model, the map can easily beadapted for the needs of individual organizations. Such a map will also be ableto indicate missing methods in the organization.


Figure 4: Organizational Learning - Enterprise Knowledge Maturing - Map (OL-EKM-Map)

References

[Alexander et al., 1977] Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., and Silverstein, M. (1977). Apattern language. Oxford University Press US.

[Argyris and Schoen, 1978] Argyris, C. and Schoen, D. A. (1978). OrganizationalLearning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.

[Beck, 1997] Beck, K. (1997). Organizational learning. Glossary - Sonderforschungs-bereich 504 (SFB 504).

[Brass et al., 2004] Brass, D. J., Galskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., and Tsai, W. (2004).Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. In Academy ofManagement Journal, volume 47, pages 795–817.

[Brown and Duguid, 1991] Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organization Science,chapter Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified viewof working, learning, and innovation., pages 40–57. Number 2/1.

[Brun et al., 2008] Brun, R., Hinkelmann, K., Telesko, R., and Thonssen, B. (2008).Towards an integrated approach to assess the potential of an enterprise to matureknowledge. 5th professional knowledge management conference 2009.

[Dodgson, 1993] Dodgson (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some litera-tures. Dodgson Organization Studies, pages 375–394.

[Fiol and Lyles, 1985] Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning.The Academy of Management Review, 10(4):803–813.

[Fricke, 2000] Fricke, Astrid; Volter, M. (2000). A pedagogical pattern language aboutteaching seminars effectively. In EuroPLoP ’2000 conference.

[Hamel and Prahalad, 1994] Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing forthe future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

[Hinkelmann et al., 2007] Hinkelmann, K., Nikles, S., Thonssen, B., and von Arx, L.(2007). An ontology-based modelling tool for knowledge intensive e-government ser-vices. Corradini, F., Polzonetti, A. (Eds.): MeTTeG07, pages 43–56.

[Huber, 1991] Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Science, volume 2, chapter Orga-nizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures., pages 88–115.University of Texas, The Institute of Management Science.

[Lave and Wenger, 1991] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning : legitimateperipheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [England]; NewYork.

[Pautzke, 1989] Pautzke, G. (1989). Die Evolution der organisatorischen Wissensbasis: Bausteine zu einer Theorie des organisatorischen Lernens. Kirsch, Herrsching.

[Prange, 1999] Prange, C. (1999). Organizational learning - desperately seeking theory?Sage.

[Probst and Buchel, 1997] Probst, G. J. B. and Buchel, B. (1997). OrganisationalesLernen : Wettbewerbsvorteil der Zukunft. Gabler, Wiesbaden.

[Sessa and London, 2006] Sessa, V. I. and London, M. (2006). Continuous Learningin Organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Applying Organizational Learning to Enterprise Knowledge...

Documents

Transcript of Applying Organizational Learning to Enterprise Knowledge...